155bLB
The Effects of Male Circumcision on Genital Ulcer Disease and Urethral Symptoms, and on HIV Acquisition: An RCT in Rakai, Uganda
Maria Wawer*1, R Gray1, G kigozi2, F Nalugoda2, T Quinn3,4, T Quinn3,4, F Makumbi2,5, F Makumbi2,5, and D Serwadda5
1Johns Hopkins Univ Bloomberg Sch of Publ Hlth, Baltimore, MD, US; 2Rakai Hlth Sci Prgm, Uganda Virus Res Inst, Entebbe; 3Johns Hopkins Med Inst, Baltimore, MD, US; 4NIAID, NIH, Bethesda, MD, US; and 5Inst of Publ Hlth, Makerere Univ, Kampala, Uganda
Background: Male
circumcision has been associated with reduced rates of genital ulcer disease,
and this might in part explain the protective effects of circumcision on HIV
acquisition. The effects of circumcision on urethral infections are unclear.
Methods: A
Ugandan randomized trial enrolled 4996 uncircumcised HIV-negative men aged 15
to 49, who agreed to receive their HIV results and counseling. Men were
randomized to immediate circumcision (2474), or circumcision delayed for 24
months (2522), and followed at 6, 12, and 24 months. At each visit,
participants were asked about symptoms suggestive of sexually transmitted
infections—including genital ulcer disease, urethral discharge, and
dysuria—during the preceding follow-up interval. We determined the period
prevalence of sexually transmitted infection symptoms per 100 visits and
estimated prevalence rate ratios (PRR) of sexually transmitted infection
symptoms in circumcised versus uncircumcised men using log-binomial regression
with robust variance. HIV incidence was also assessed and incidence rate ratios
(IRR) with robust standard errors were estimated by Poisson regression.
Results: The
period prevalence of genital ulcer disease was 3.1% in the circumcised and 5.8%
in the uncircumcised men over all follow-up visits (PRR = 0.53, 95%CI 0.43 to
0.64, p
<0.0001). The rates of urethral
discharge were 1.8% in the circumcised and 2.2% in the uncircumcised men (PRR =
0.84, 95%CI 0.63 to 1.11, p =
0.21), and rates of dysuria were 3.2% and 3.3% in the intervention and control
arms, respectively (PRR = 0.97, 95%CI 0.77 to 1.21). Genital ulcer disease was
associated with increased risk of HIV acquisition, but circumcision was
protective irrespective of genital ulcer disease. Compared to circumcised men without genital
ulcer disease (HIV incidence 0.63/100 person-years), the incidence was 1.06/100
person-years in uncircumcised men without genital ulcer disease (IRR = 1.67,
95%CI 0.96 to 2.91), 1.82/100 person-years in circumcised men with genital
ulcer disease (IRR = 2.87, 95%CI 0.67 to 12.34), and 6.32/100 person-years (IRR
= 9.97, 95%CI 4.87
to 20.39) in uncircumcised men with genital ulcer disease.
Conclusions: Male
circumcision reduced symptomatic genital ulcer disease, but had no effect on
urethral symptoms. The reduction in genital ulcer disease associated with
circumcision partly accounts for the protective effect of circumcision against
HIV infection.
|